My only complaint with him, as a CT resident, is he endorsed Lieberman.

Hands the White House to the GOP. Great. The country is hardly recohnizable now; 4-8 more years of this "philosophy" and God knows what we'll be. Fred Thompson. Geezus H. Christ. Stay out of it, Bloomberg. One Nader in my lifetime was one too many.

With that much of his own loot, without the kind of relative caution and control a party organization normally provides (I said relative caution) Bloomberg can run nearly anything in his television ads.

F'rinstance, while the Republicans will almost certainly hint at Clinton being a family-destroying lesbian, Bloomberg could run animated cartoons showing her in the act. (And they wouldn't be as censored as you think; censorship of political messages is very slight, and usually is restricted only by the gag reflexes of the voters.)

On the Republican side, Bloomberg would only have to show whichever Republican gets the nomination at the debate where his raised hand says he doesn't believe in evolution. Democrats would be afraid to take on the religious right, but Bloomberg could easily paint the candidate as a superstitious, ignornace-worshipping creationist, someone unsuited to lead our educationally and technologically challenged nation.

Whatever tack he could take, I'm almost certain it will be...tacky. And it will be very good for the TV industry, but very hard on TV viewers.

I wonder whether either Obama or Clinton -- particularly Obama whose rhetoric especially evokes a post-partisan Washington -- might consider Bloomberg as a V-P candidate. Bloomberg's non-partisan republican status might not be a liability but rather a boon; consider the thinking behind those rumors which suggested Kerry sounded out McCain as a centrist V-P candidate). Bloombrg's enormously deep pockets could only be a huge plus, not to mention his reputation for competent leadership and general popularity.

In my quick analysis thus, the pros ($, competency, non-partisanship) would probably outweigh the cons (its negative effect on the Democratic base, its solidification of the ticket as a Northern/Northeast-skewing demographic). The latter concern would be especially mitigated if Giuliani were the Republican candidate.

I'm not necessarily advocating for this outcome; I would hope the Democrats in this dream year would press harder for more definitively progressive politics, and I agree with the previous letter writer that Bloomberg's Lieberman endorsement is disappointing, just as one example. Despite his admirable stance on issues like the environment, I'm not sure Bloomberg is a Republican in name only. (And of course there remains the question whether Bloomberg would be interested, or wheher - like McCain according to those rumors - Bloomberg would see an alliance with the Democratic ticket as a betrayal of his centrist Republican credentials and the Vice Presidency as a bridge to nowhere in a party which can do without him.)

Still, I think that Obama or Clinton would be foolish not to consider and sound out Bloomberg's interest on this front. If this compromise meant a huge fundraising coup and a more widespread appeal, it could well be a step in the right direction for the ticket and possibly for the country.

Ross Perot made the Federal deficit a major issue in the 1992 election. George Bush Sr. blamed Perot for his re-election loss. During the next 8 years, President Clinton and the Congress did a reasonably good job in bringing the deficit under control, at least by Washington DC accounting standards. Whether Bloomberg would help the Democrats or Republicans is an unknown at this time, at least to me. I would hope he would win. But at least he can afford to spend whatever it takes to bring the most important issues facing the country to public awareness: issues such as Social Security funding, Medicare funding, the size of the US military, the growing oil shortage, the war in Iraq, the war on terror and its effects on civil rights, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the Federal deficit, the growing national debt and health insurance, to name at least a few.

It certainly would be nice to have at least one candidate who does not feel beholden to special interest groups, such as Evangelical ministers (Republican) and black ministers (Democrat), who is not beholden to either oil companies (Republican) or labor unions (Democrat).

I'm done with Daley.

Another rich businessman that forgot the working class. To hell with him and his kind. Just like the repubs he will be foorever on the side of big business. I live in the city. Do a numbers check and see how much it costs to get around this city since he got into office. He will forever be a rich man with rich friends and we've had enough of those types running the country. Nothing to see here lets move on to someone with vision instead of deep pockets and no sense of what the real world people do and need.

So he doesn't seem to obey the typical drug war "morality" of lying for the sake of sending the right message about drugs.

It doesn't surprise me, by the way, that a country whose people believe you can lie your way to a better world ended up getting into a horrible bloody war after being seduced by lies.

Bloomberg is a curious politician, because he seems decidedly pragmatic, almost technocratish. Like his response to the reporter...

May we get to substantive questions, informative to the public?"

That approach colors everything he seems to do. He's not a "can't do it" conservative, more like a "what will work?" neoliberal. But he seems to track the progress of what he does, and if it's not working the way he wanted, he adjusts his approach accordingly -- that's a virtue that seems cardinal in the face of a "stay the course" reactionary like Bush.

I don't think he can really poach very many votes from the parties -- he's far too interested in good administration and governance to appeal to the GOP base, and he's far too enmeshed in Wall Street high-rolling to appeal to the Democratic base, such as it is. The neoliberals will likely love him, but I don't think that's enough to win the prize.

But he's got all that money, so who knows what he'll do?

Glad to see a piece on him, although I objected to Mr. Shapiro laying Bush's win at Nader's feet. Gore let Bush win, by running a weak campaign and by surrendering the presidency to the Bushies. Gore took the Democratic vote for granted, and took the Republican manipulations of the process in stride, and lost because of it. To pin blame on Nader is tantamount to saying "If we'd only had fewer choices, Gore would've won." Not a very democratic sentiment, that. Pro-choice in everything but your candidates, eh?

So, with Bloomberg lurking, one can only wonder what would happen if he runs. I think he should run -- more choice in candidates is better than less, don't you think?